What convinced you of Libertarianism?

Eliot Rosewater

benway wrote: »

Well, the way I've worked it through is that money can be translated into all kinds of utility, so the more money the more utility.

That's what I disagree with. If I'm working from 9-7 each day, and am exhausted when I come home, I simply can't convert all my earnings into pleasurable past-times (utility) -- I wouldn't have the energy nor inclination to read, etc. And this is not to even mention the amount of pleasure from the 9-7 employment itself.

benway wrote: »

Rightly or wrongly, I would regard Rand as the popular libertarian's figurehead, not so much because of the quality of her work, far from it, but because of the aggressive evangelical proselytising of her followers. Apparently a 1991 survey by the Library of Congress found Atlas Shrugged to be the second most influential literary work of all time, after the Bible. Scary thought.

Fair enough. I agree that many followers of libertarianism support it in a sensationalist unreflective fashion -- but I see that as just a general trend in all human affairs, rather than something specific to hard-core Randians. Realistically, genuinely insightful and rigorous discussions of politics are rare.

benway wrote: »

Hadn't even heard of Nozick, will check it out when I get the chance.

Anarchy, State, and Utopia is his main book.

benway wrote: »

Now isn't this much more useful than you just telling me what I think?

I agree -- being nice yields so much utility! :P

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

benway

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

The thing is, I think that libertarians take "government" to be a noun, I take it as a verb. Private sector actors govern just the same, within their sphere of influence, and are subject to corruption, incompetence, etc., just the same.

It'll take much more than abolishing the Dáil, local authorities, and I suspect most importantly for libertarians the Revenue, to do away with government.

Another thing that occurred to me while going through some contract law - what I actually should be doing rather than posting here - I would say that maybe 75% of the law in this area, as it stands, would be invalidated in a libertarian scheme, as it operates to protect the weaker party where there is a clear inequality of bargaining power.

Taking Hayek's view, that the law evolved, maybe summed up by Oliver Wendell Holmes, "the life of the law has not been logic, but experience", do you really think it would be a good idea to roll back on hundreds of years of accumulated wisdom, in this instance designed to ameliorate the injustices caused by a system where all parties contract as "equals", in favour of a system that hasn't even been shown to work in theory?

Nosing through Nozick at my leisure as well, few issues jump at me, but I'm not sure if this is the right thread for a general discussion like this, either, would be more interested to see how you'd address Kyussbishop's OP and subsequent clarification.

*** Interlude ***

Whatever about the politics, Doug Stanhope is still hilarious - full show >here<, not for the faint hearted though.

KyussBishop

Eliot Rosewater wrote:

They do as long as they can get away with it, but they are ultimately responsible to their customers. If a company can't satisfy consumer interests it won't make money for shareholders. I fail to see why the interests of customers and shareholders are usually seen as opposed.

Oh not opposed by any means, shareholders just are given higher priority compared to other interests, in such a way that leads to a focus on short term profits.

Eliot Rosewater wrote:

KyussBishop wrote:

If that becomes acceptable, that means it is more likely for the extreme-variant of these attitudes to proliferate throughout society, and it could become self-reinforcing to the extent that compassion/empathy outside your immediate social circle is dissuaded.

Not saying that would happen, it just seems perfectly compatible with the "morals as self-interest" principals, and I can see a path to that happening (even if it's difficult to determine how likely it is to happen).

There's nothing stopping those kind of attitudes propagating now -- the government hasn't legislated that everybody be nice (yet ).

But for sure, wanting people to have freedom means being okay with them using that freedom in ways that you don't like. I think your question is worthy, but is perhaps phrased a little too generally -- for it to be a consequential matter, one would really have to demonstrate how "moral bankruptcy" could come to reign in a free society, rather than just loosely suggest that morally bankrupt monopolies could occur without any reason for that. (Such general statements aren't falsifiable, I suppose.)

There's nothing stopping any particular viewpoints propogating (free speech etc.), but in a Libertarian society those particular viewpoints are bolstered by Libertarian principals, and it suddenly becomes difficult to principally oppose them.

I don't posit that any morally bankrupt monopolies will come about, I just posit that as an extreme example of something that (if it did happen) it seems there could be no principalled objection to.
The monopoly aspect being an extreme example (for clarity of argument), means I don't cover all of the smaller cases of such actions as well, which you would lose (or greatly diminish) the ability to have a principled objection to.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

KyussBishop

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Sorry but, not going to take the time replying to your posts, with the way you misrepresented mine earlier (and now don't even acknowledge that), for the sake of avoiding my arguments.
There's no point having a debate with you when you selectively ignore arguments, and when you appear (though I could be mistaken) reluctant to discuss the topic outside of ideologically dichotomic stances.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

whatstherush

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Why would they have to be self-sufficient, if they had enough mass could they just not take what they want. Since you are now a "market anarchist", I'm presuming there is no state to stop this belligerent group.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

whatstherush

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I know they would have to take it themselves, my question was who would stop them?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

benway

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Those nasty belligerent unemployed, children, elderly and sick, stealing our wealth.

I wonder if you'd like to address the point of the totally deficient libertarian understanding of government - the terms state and government seem to be conflated, where in fact a much more sophisticated understanding of governance has been conceptualised over the past quarter century, primarily by Foucault, and primarily in his lectures series "Society Must Be Defended". It's exceptionally difficult to distill Foucault's thought into simple catchphrases, but this is roughly the thrust of it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Governmentality

The ensemble formed by the institutions, procedures, analyses and reflections, the calculations and tactics that allow the exercise of this very specific albeit complex form of power, which has as its target population, as its principal form of knowledge political economy, and as its essential technical means apparatuses of security.

The tendency which, over a long period and throughout the West, has steadily led towards the pre-eminence over all other forms (sovereignty, discipline, etc) of this type of power which may be termed government, resulting, on the one hand, in formation of a whole series of specific governmental apparatuses, and, on the other, in the development of a whole complex of savoirs (knowledges).

The process, or rather the result of the process, through which the state of justice of the Middle Ages, transformed into the administrative state during the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, gradually becomes 'governmentalized'.

Simply put - "government" is all those technologies, apparatuses and knowledges, that direct "the conduct of conduct".

Permabear wrote: »

Most wealth in today's world does not exist in such a handy material form. As such, the opportunities that exist for the pitchforks and torches brigade to confiscate said wealth are relatively limited.

And most power does not exist concentrated in an handy material form, embodied by the state. In fact, it seems to me the state operates as the primary restraining influence on power and exploitation in today's world.

How does a libertarian approach, with its anaemic theory of rights and coercion propose to deal with this?

There's a historical precedent for a similar for of social organisation - isn't what we'd get in supplanting the nation state with an order of private fiefdoms simply a neo-feudal dystopia?

Btw, I'm afraid that I have to +1 Kyussbishop on the thrust of his previous post, far too often difficult points are left hanging. Seems to me that no opportunity to parrot simplistic libertarian dogma is passed up, but when it comes to dealing with substantive criticisms, there's a notable silence. This is the most obvious example, there are many more.

It's a pity, would be a much more useful discussion if people could take the rough with the smooth and engage with the hard questions, at the very least do participants the courtesy of acknowledging the point, even if you don't have an answer to it.

Valmont

benway wrote: »

And most power does not exist concentrated in an handy material form, embodied by the state. In fact, it seems to me the state operates as the primary restraining influence on power and exploitation in today's world.

You'll have to expand on this point: the one source of concentrated, growing power is also the one restraining influence on power? I don't follow.

benway wrote: »

It's a pity, would be a much more useful discussion if people could take the rough with the smooth and engage with the hard questions, at the very least do participants the courtesy of acknowledging the point, even if you don't have an answer to it.

Pull the evil-child-killer-egomaniac undertones from your hard questions and maybe people will be more inclined towards discussion.

Valmont

benway wrote: »

but when it comes to dealing with substantive criticisms, there's a notable silence. This is the most obvious example, there are many more.

Firstly, I don't see the 'substantive criticism' contained in that post.

I've conducted psychological research on willing participants who sign a consent form acknowledging that the treatment on trial is currently being tested and poses no guarantee of relief for them. I get participants for my study, the participants have a chance at finding some relief for an aspect of their particular condition (dyslexia in this instance), and £7 an hour for their time. What's the problem here?

In fact, the department I am associated with has the above arrangement for people with hearing difficulties, dementia, sleep disorders, as I imagine do most psychology departments. Now, I've answered one of these pressing points, wasted my time pointing out that it occurs already in every university with a psychology department (at the least), so perhaps if you stopped pre-emptively declaring ideological victory every time someone ignores one of the weak emotive arguments peppered throughout this thread we could have the reasonable discussion you're hankering after.

benway

Valmont wrote: »

You'll have to expand on this point: the one source of concentrated, growing power is also the one restraining influence on power? I don't follow.

"Government" in its simple sense, has evolved as a model of negotiating between interests in society, albeit an imperfect one, obviously.

Simple example. Employment regulations - health and safety at work, organisation of working time, the minimum wage and child labour laws - it's in the interests of workers to be paid enough to live on, and not to be put in danger in the course of their employment, and not to be put to work from birth, pretty much.

It's in the interests of employers to spend the very least they can on running their business. Employers are much more powerful, and in pursuit of their self interest during the laissez-faire "endless boom" era of the late 19th century, it led to conditions like:

Most industrial workers still worked a 10-hour day (12 hours in the steel industry), yet earned from 20 to 40 percent less than the minimum deemed necessary for a decent life.

Following a struggle by organised labour, governments were moved to intervene, so as to curb the ability of private sector actors to exploit their workers.

That's one example what the "red tape" and bureaucracy that Daily Mail types like to bleat about, and that libertarians abhor, actually entails, and of how government operates as a restraining influence on private sector power.

State power isn't "growing", it's been in retreat for at least 40 years, as the balance of power tilted towards private sector actors.

Government also incorporates checks and balances, and at least some form of democratic accountability, again imperfect, all things that are lacking in private sector institutional models - it's a much more sophisticated ensemble than libertarians like to admit.

Valmont wrote: »

Pull the evil-child-killer-egomaniac undertones from your hard questions and maybe people will be more inclined towards discussion.

Hit a nerve, did I?

So what, I'm not allowed to point to the logical consequences of libertarian positions, as I see them? Read my posts, there's plenty of substance there to engage with, and it's not based on moralising, but rational analysis.

Valmont wrote: »

I've conducted psychological research on willing participants who sign a consent form acknowledging that the treatment on trial is currently being tested and poses no guarantee of relief for them. I get participants for my study, the participants have a chance at finding some relief for an aspect of their particular condition (dyslexia in this instance), and £7 an hour for their time. What's the problem here?

Firstly, that's a voluntary scheme, is it not? The Market for Liberty seems to propose forcing mentally ill offenders to take part in these programs, with their earnings being used to pay off their literal debt to society, as in the injured party/parties to their crimes and/or interested insurance companies.

More importantly, no-one even bothered to address the point, it's been hanging for a week now.

KyussBishop

benway wrote: »

Btw, I'm afraid that I have to +1 Kyussbishop on the thrust of his previous post, far too often difficult points are left hanging. Seems to me that no opportunity to parrot simplistic libertarian dogma is passed up, but when it comes to dealing with substantive criticisms, there's a notable silence. This is the most obvious example, there are many more.

It's a pity, would be a much more useful discussion if people could take the rough with the smooth and engage with the hard questions, at the very least do participants the courtesy of acknowledging the point, even if you don't have an answer to it.

Indeed, this is too much of a pattern in these discussions; the cynical side of me thinks there is a knowing and deliberate reason these difficult arguments are avoided, and that there is intention not to let things stray beyond skin-deep ideological arguments.

I'm not accusing, it could simply be a temporary thing, as it's not uncommon for people to unintentionally dig their feet in (I do it myself sometimes, though try my best to recognize and avoid it); however, it does trigger some warning signs for me, that if it becomes a regular pattern that I see, that there's a bad motive behind it.


As I've pointed out in my first post, Libertarianism is extremely cleverly packaged, such that I believe (at first glance) it will appeal to most people, with the primary issues hidden in its economics.
Even after detailed studying of it, it is easy to miss this if you don't take considerable time to research economics as a topic in itself (as I'm doing myself at the moment), so I am very wary of that.

That is part of the point of why I made this topic, to see what kind of responses I could get to the economic issues I pointed out, and if people may be reluctant to address the core economic issues.
I suspect in a lot of cases, that people are either uncertain of the economics (as some seem to be), or were previously certain but may be convinced to give them a second (more skeptical) look; the most interesting cases though (personally), are where people may be unwavering in their stance


Much of the issues/questions I've summarized in this post, and in the first post:
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=78006003&postcount=18

Valmont

benway wrote: »

"Government" in its simple sense, has evolved as a model of negotiating between interests in society, albeit an imperfect one, obviously.

But it doesn't negotiate -- it coerces. I don't negotiate my taxes, I pay them or get summoned to court or arrested. A business doesn't negotiate the terms of operation dictated to it by the government -- they comply or get shut down.

benway wrote: »

State power isn't "growing", it's been in retreat for at least 40 years, as the balance of power tilted towards private sector actors.

Which private sector actors? What examples have you of the retreat of State power? Because from where I'm sitting, bank bailouts, Croke-park agreements, income taxes, unsustainable welfare programs, endless wars, the opposite would seem to be true.

benway wrote: »

So what, I'm not allowed to point to the logical consequences of libertarian positions, as I see them? Read my posts, there's plenty of substance there to engage with, and it's not based on moralising, but rational analysis.

benway wrote: »

Those nasty belligerent unemployed, children, elderly and sick, stealing our wealth.

...and not to be put to work from birth

Wholly rational!

benway wrote: »

Firstly, that's a voluntary scheme, is it not? The Market for Liberty seems to propose forcing mentally ill offenders to take part in these programs, with their earnings being used to pay off their literal debt to society, as in the injured party/parties to their crimes and/or interested insurance companies.

Again, there's nothing new about this arrangement. If you don't pay your debts, you will have your possessions taken from you, a charging order placed on your house, or your pay will be docked at source. That is the current situation so I'm unsure as to why you are criticising it as a part of libertarianism?

Also, you presume mental illness renders people incapable of exerting free will and even that mental illness is valid concept, two points I disagree with.

benway

Valmont wrote: »

But it doesn't negotiate -- it coerces. I don't negotiate my taxes, I pay them or get summoned to court or arrested. A business doesn't negotiate the terms of operation dictated to it by the government -- they comply or get shut down.

It's the process of making the regulations that is negotiated, by various means. The state retains a monopoly on violent coercion so as to enforce these laws and regulations. Don't tell me you think that self-regulation would be better? Or no regulation?

Valmont wrote: »

Which private sector actors? What examples have you of the retreat of State power? Because from where I'm sitting, bank bailouts, Croke-park agreements, income taxes, unsustainable welfare programs, endless wars, the opposite would seem to be true.

One good example - free movement of capital within the EU. The government has no power whatsoever in that crucial area. Also, the advent of light-touch regulation in the financial services sector. And we all know how well that worked out.

Speaking of which, private sector actors like the banks can hold governments to ransom - discharge our debts, or the world is going to collapse. Remains to be seen what would have happened if they had been allowed to fail, but I doubt it'd have been pretty.

Valmont wrote: »

Wholly rational!

It certainly is - these were the real social ills ameliorated by government intervention in the employment market. If you think that's hyperbole, I'd suggest you read up in conditions in the late-Industrial era throughout the developed world.

And who are the main beneficiaries of redistribution? Apart from the banks, obviously.

Valmont wrote: »

Again, there's nothing new about this arrangement. If you don't pay your debts, you will have your possessions taken from you, a charging order placed on your house, or your pay will be docked at source. That is the current situation so I'm unsure as to why you are criticising it as a part of libertarianism?

It's in another thread - contained in a work posted by Permabear called the Market for Liberty, where the authors sketched out their view of a libertarian / anarcho-capitalist society. That is one point that really stuck out as an unwitting reductio ad absurdum. There are other criticisms of the work on that thread, that have also been left hanging. Would be good if someone could address them.

Valmont wrote: »

Also, you presume mental illness renders people incapable of exerting free will and even that mental illness is valid concept, two points I disagree with.

It's a privilege to encounter so many people who know my views better than I do. Although, as it happens, I don't think either of these things.

Valmont

KyussBishop wrote: »

the cynical side of me thinks there is a knowing and deliberate reason these difficult arguments are avoided, and that there is intention not to let things stray beyond skin-deep ideological arguments.

I'm not accusing, it could simply be a temporary thing, as it's not uncommon for people to unintentionally dig their feet in (I do it myself sometimes, though try my best to recognize and avoid it); however, it does trigger some warning signs for me, that if it becomes a regular pattern that I see, that there's a bad motive behind it.

Ineffectual, stubborn, and conspiratorial moralisers. And you wonder why nobody wants to debate your points?

KyussBishop

Valmont wrote: »

Ineffectual, stubborn, and conspiratorial moralisers. And you wonder why nobody wants to debate your points?

People are free not to debate my points, but if they malign or misrepresent what I say, or continuously brush off deeper questionings of their principals in favour of unwavering non-deviation from strictly-ideological arguments, it is perfectly valid to point that out and question the motives behind it.

I have not seen that enough to say there's a bad motive behind it, it could just be people unintentionally digging their heels in, but if it becomes a pattern when still put to them (lasting weeks or months), then it is suspicious and there is probably (in my opinion) a bad motive behind it.

To me, the core of it seems to center around this: (the lack of empiricism behind Libertarian economics)

KyussBishop wrote:

Libertarianism as an untested theory:
Libertarianism, specifically its economics (which I focus on here), is a theory which has not yet been tried in earnest and put into practice, which means it has no empirical evidence to back it up at the moment.

Normally, the logical way to approach encountering a new political/economic theory, is to start with skepticism and demand proof, but a lot of Libertarian supporters seem to have accepted it and say it will work, even in the absence of evidence to support that.
This triggers my curiosity, and is what motivates the 'easy questions' I posted in the section above; in previous posts I've wondered whether Libertarian arguments may have side-stepped peoples skepticism, but I'll omit detailing that here.

Another important point regarding this, is that even if general economic models are arguably not scientific, they can still be empirically tested to see if they can be falsified.

This leads me to some other questions:
Do you agree with the above?
An extremely important question: If you do not agree with the above, do you reject the scientific method (specifically attempts at testing/falsification), in trying to determine if these theories work?

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=78006003&postcount=18

Getting some people to even acknowledge that can be incredibly difficult (though many have so far, or at least have shown uncertainty/skepticism, to their credit).

If that can't even be acknowledged, and deeper questions relating to that can't be explored with some people, then an honest discussion is not possible, because they will stick to ideological arguments (can't have much else other than ideological arguments, if empirical examination of the topic is basically ruled out).

benway

Valmont wrote: »

Ineffectual, stubborn, and conspiratorial moralisers. And you wonder why nobody wants to debate your points?

Here, play the ball. Specific examples, a contribution, or gtfo.

Wonder if this evasiveness and touchiness has anything to do with a growing realisation that your dogma is full of more holes than a half tonne of swiss cheese? Or is evidence of a certain disingenuousness in libertarian positions?

KyussBishop

benway wrote: »

Here, play the ball. Specific examples, a contribution, or gtfo.

Wonder if this evasiveness and touchiness has anything to do with a growing realisation that your dogma is full of more holes than a half tonne of swiss cheese? Or is evidence of a certain disingenuousness in libertarian positions?

Ya there is too much outright dismissal of criticisms, and the whole topic keeps devolving into "Us vs Them" type arguments again.

It would genuinely be very interesting to have some of the deeper questions in my posts responded to, as I can see a lot of core problems with Libertarian economics, and while there are Libertarian posters who have acknowledged some uncertainty or skepticism of these economics (as I said earlier, to their credit), many others just can't even address the issue without wholesale dismissal of my posts.

I know my posts are very skeptical and at times cynical of Libertarianism and its principals (particularly economics), but I've been very straight-forward and reasonable (in my opinion) in my arguments, and I think I put forward a lot of fair and important questions.

It seems quite unfair that my posts get maligned, selectively misrepresented, and (through that) a lot of my arguments outright dismissed; it leads to a pretty dull debate, "Us vs Them" ideological arguments, and a lot of wasted time, when the topic could instead be very interesting if these points were explored.


It's something I'm still pretty fascinated in and curious of on a psychological level though, i.e. the motives for the way people approach the topic and the avoidance of particular areas of discussion, so I'm pretty determined to keep poking away at that until I figure it out (exposing it to others along the way as well, as to be honest, it's pretty damn obvious if you look out for it)

Valmont

KyussBishop wrote: »

To me, the core of it seems to center around this: (the lack of empiricism behind Libertarian economics)

1. There is no such thing as 'libertarian economics'. Many libertarians are proponents of Austrian Economics, some are not.

2. Your question concerning empiricism and economics presupposes that the debate concerning the merits of historicism has been solved in favour of central planning; it has not. If you were aware of Karl Popper's books The Open Society and Its Enemies and The Poverty of Historicism, which greatly contest the epistemology underlying your question, you would not have phrased it as you did.

So I respectfully decline -- not because I don't have answers or because I don't enjoy discussing libertarianism (it's my main hobby, really) but because I, like many other libertarians here, refuse to argue when the sub-plot of your's and Benway's argument is to call us a bunch of dogmatic retards and little else.

If you want to attack specific libertarians positions, please start a thread and I'll contribute; but if you expect to start a catch-all "what convinced you of libertarianism (I know it's because you're stupid really)" thread, don't expect to get anywhere!

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

K-9

Thread seems to be more about moaning about not answering questions or not liking the questions asked, at this stage seems to have run its course.

benway

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Or, here's a wild one, you could engage with the substance, maybe? I don't think that anyone's attacking the moral character of libertarians, just extrapolating the logical consequences of libertarian approaches, as we see them. Not the same thing.

I would be very interested in what you think about the whole spontaneous order, cultural and legal evolution angle, but if you're so thin-skinned about it...